Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Thoughts on revitalizing WikiProject

Thoughts on revitalizing Wikiproject Paleontology
Over the years, participation in Wikiproject Paleontology has declined substantially. It's hard to believe that back in 2007, not long after I first started becoming really active here, we successfully brought nearly 20 different articles to featured status. Nowadays we're lucky to get one or two. The low rate of featured article production is a bad sign because it means that the rate of scientific advances and discoveries of new taxa actually far exceeds our ability to fully cover them. In other words, we're losing ground.

As it stands, only a handful of people are actually involved with the project as a project as a project. There are more who edit articles without contributing to discussions on project talk pages, but we generally need more than the one or two responders to topics posted there. Members also seem to show a tendency to to join Wikipedia, become active, and then "graduate" to personal projects, authoring their own books or starting their own parallel encyclopedias, or becoming researchers in their own right.

Since most of our remaining contributors have been members for an extended period and few are new recruits it appears that we are losing a "war of attrition". We don't just seem to be losing steam, in the long term we seem to be facing an existential threat. As more and more long-time contributors drop out, there is less and less activity to attract the interest of potential contributors and fewer veterans to help guide them through the confusing process of learning and adjusting to Wikipedia's rules and standards. It would be tragic if Wikiproject Paleontology lasted only a single generation, but without an "apostolic succession" of contributors, that's the risk we face.

I think it's clear that we need to examine and determine the causes of our declining activity levels and devise solutions. I've thought about the issue and have formulated some hypotheses to explain why we have so little activity:


 * 1) Lack of awareness. A lot of people probably don't even know that Wikipedia is written by a volunteer army and can be edited by anyone, much less that there's any organization specifically behind its paleontology articles.
 * 2) Overwhelming choices. As Wikipedia's number of articles and scope increases, so too does the intimidation factor. Many prospective editors may be overwhelmed by the sense of not knowing where to begin.
 * 3) Steep learning curve. The task of learning how to contribute is bewildering given the complexities of wiki mark-up and Wikipedia's innumerable sometimes contradictory policies.
 * 4) Lack of fun As contributing to Wikipedia becomes more complex and demanding, it also becomes less enjoyable. Unfortunately, as membership declines there are fewer opportunities for socialization and camaraderie, so there is a bit of a vicious circle at work.
 * 5) The low hanging fruit have been picked. Since the highest profile and easiest-to-write articles attracted the most attention from our first generation of contributors, they were the quickest to fully develop. We have a dearth of articles that are attractive to new members.
 * 6) Competition with science blogging. The rise in demand for science-themed blogs has led many educated science communicators to seek audiences independently of Wikipedia, where they can set there own rules and standards and don't have to deal with the prospect of difficult editors altering or removing their work.

The identification of potential contributing factors to Wikiproject Paleontology's declining membership problem allows us to devise solutions. I would like to propose some means to combat our low activity levels:


 * 1) Combating the lack of awareness:
 * 2) Banner ads: I propose that Wikipedia would benefit if its projects had the ability to post small, subtle banner ads at the top of their pages, similar to the way the Foundation overall solicits donations and informs the community about important events and decisions. Readers should be periodically reminded that Wikiperoject Paleontology exists, is active, and looking for new members and contributions. To avoid bothering readers we might choose to only display these on weekends and special occasions when readers are more likely to be visiting Wikipedia for recreational reasons rather than weekdays who might be a more "captive audience" forced to browse Wikipedia for school. I've photoshopped some example images
 * 3) Direct outreach: Wikiproject Paleontology may benefit from actively trying to recruit members from outside sources. I've talked with a lot of non-Wikipedians about contributing and they often say they like the idea. Wikipedia has many potential supporters out there who might be interested is asked and guided toward productive membership. Reddit's paleontology discussion boards may be a good target for outreach efforts, as the Reddit community overall has a very favorable opinion of the Wikimedia Foundation. In fact, Reddit donates a portion of its income to foundation as charity. We may also may consider collaborating with the moderators of dedicated fossil forums or ask science bloggers to promote us.
 * 4) Combating the overwhelming choices:
 * 5) Devise SMART goals for prospective members: As any good self-help guru knows, to be successful a person must have SMART goals. That is, they must be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timed. Sadly, as Wikipedia's paleontology coverage has grown, it has become more challenging for the project to form SMART goals. In the early days we had a small number of critical articles that needed urgent attention, forcing the community to behave somewhat "SMARTly". Now, with thousands and thousands of paleontology articles, it is challenging to choose exactly which ones to contribute to. I suggest that as part of our direct outreach program we begin devising "SMART goals" for potential members. For example, we (with permission from moderation) might post a topic in the paleontology subreddit challenging redditors to categorize all of our Category: Triassic dinosaurs by stage before the end of the summer. To make things even more interesting we could post a similar challenge in a different venue, pitting Team Reddit and Team Fossil Forum (or whatever) against each other.
 * 6) Combating the steep learning curve:
 * 7) Local information: Wikipedia's help and policy pages are a gargantuan, tangled mess. Attempts have been made to make these pages more accessible and userfriendly, but even after nearly ten years of contributing here, I find myself overwhelmed by the sheer quantity and complexity of the rules, and to a lesser degree mark-up. Most of this is probably not relevant to the prospective paleontology editor and so raises a huge barrier to entry that likely scares them off. I propose that Wikiproject Paleontology itself hosts a filtered and simplified summary, aimed specifically at new members, of how to contribute to our own articles.
 * 8) Project user adoption program: Wikipedia has a successful user adoption program, but over time as Wikipedia develops fewer and fewer members are likely to be generalist Wikipedians and a greater proportion are likely to specialize topically. This makes a general "user adoption" program less relevant and raises the need for experienced specialist Wikipedians to train their own successors. I thus propose that we start our own local user adoption program to attract and guide novices toward effective Wikiproject Paleontology participation.
 * 9) Revamp the project page: Our current project page is dull, complex, and somewhat cluttered. I think we need to seriously consider redesigning it to be more appealing and accessible to novice members.
 * 10) Combating the lack of fun:
 * 11) A lounge: Frankly, our editors could use a break sometimes. We need some fun and community in addition to our serious efforts and I propose that we set up a page for off-topic discussions where we can blow off steam to help build it.
 * 12) Fossil identification page: Many people collect fossils without being quite sure what they've found. I propose that we create a page where people can post photographs of their mystery fossils to be identified, at the "cost" of them donating said photo to Wikimedia Commons.
 * 13) Paleontology reference desk: Wikipedia already has science reference desks where people can ask science questions. I propose that create our own local reference desk specifically for paleontology.
 * 14) Combating the lack of low hanging fruit:
 * 15) Cultivate sister projects: Wikipedia is far more fully developed than its sister projects, so it may be easier to attract users there. As users gain confidence and enthusiasm for contributing to wikis they can be encouraged to participate in Wikipedia itself.
 * 16) Seek better relations with academia.
 * 17) 'Write a guide to contributing for paleontologists and grad students: Academics sometimes have a hard time adjusting to the culture of Wikipedia's community. However, as more and more of Wikipedia's "low hanging fruit" are plucked, the community's need for contributors with more in-depth and specialist knowledge increases. It would behoove us to actively exert the effort of making integration with the Wikipedia community as easy as possible for academics since as time goes on we will have to rely on them more and more.
 * 18) Encourage contribution to Wikipedia as part of course work: Professors who require Wikipedia contribution as part of academic course work can provide us with a significant "captive audience" of contributors. Once they get a taste of participation they may choose to continue after their academic work is done, but even if they don't a single classroom's worth of extra contributors can make a substantial contribution.
 * 19) Combating competition with science blogging.
 * 20) Make contributing to Wikipedia more ego-friendly:
 * 21) Devise more awards and competitions:
 * 22) Period cups:
 * 23) Member of the years:
 * 24) Type of contributor of the year:
 * 25) Compile project histories:
 * 26) Memorial portals:
 * 27) Personal books: